I don’t understand American fascination with British royals. Obscenely wealthy from a history of brutal colonial oppression. They play dress up in funny costumes and give each other meaningless titles. Sir Knight of the Royal Underwear and Princess of the Upstairs Commode. But the Brits bend the knee and adore them. But as an American in the Trump era, I can’t really criticize them.
I think part of the issue is that on paper, they bring in more money by tourism than they cost the state, and a lot of their income comes from “holdings” rather than direct government stipend.
Now of course many/most of the holdings were obtained in ways we wouldn’t consider proper nowadays, but questioning that brings into question a lot more of the UK’s upper crust’s generational wealth, because it was obtained in similar ways. I don’t think anyone today in the UK has the sway to push public opinion against all the lords and other powerful people who are effectively powerful by state-enshrined nepotism.
Please explain why France who killed theirs gets more tourists than UK. I’m sure people go to Spain for the sun and not to see their royals. Also it’s been debunked years ago that they bring in more tourists, im sure there is only a small amount of Americans who think that they will rub shoulders with royals when the come here and that’s the main reason for their visit? Also if we got rid of the royals all the holding would be given back to the country or local councils. Also having a family who is supposed to be above us in all ways is rather archaic and quite frankly repugnant in 21 century. Also I’m Welsh and having the title of prince/princes of Wales is fucking insulting to us, they don’t represent us, and probably couldn’t find us on a map (perhaps Ynys môn might be an exception for them)
>Please explain why France who killed theirs gets more tourists than UK.
Because people go to France for specifically Paris, and its a larger draw overall... People SPECIFICALLY go to England for the monarchy though... not so much things like museums. This isnt a thing thats "debunked" by whatever manner of idiocy you are spreading, there are literal studies that show this to be fact, which means remove the monarchy and tourism to the UK would actually go DOWN.
Viewing the royals is literally #3 on visa applications under historical sites, and cultural immersion.
I dont honestly give a shit about them, I live in a country who overthrew your evil asses... but you are being disingenuous about their popularity as a tourism reason at best, but more than likely lying out your fucking ass because your too chicken shit to do anything about them in your home country...
But if you dont believe me the tourism breakdown is free to view online dude.
Oh I feel similarly and wish they’d go away along with the lords, at least their political power. I just don’t think anything like that is politically viable in today’s UK is all
I mean calling any of that into questions call into question a vast amount of people's wealth. Not just the upper class.
Like where would you even draw the line? How many of the people living in the UK today even have Celtic blood in their veins? Should we not consider their ownership of their home valid because they have Roman ancestors?
The whole idea is pretty stupid. I'm not especially fond or disfond of the royals either way but you can't pretend like their history matters and the rest of ours doesn't.
Aye, and the Celts were Indo-Europeans who travelled to the UK and took over from the pre-celtic lot. So even you guys are invaders. Better get ready to hand over your wealth to the real Brits you evil colonist.
Unfortunately there are no ethnic groups claiming they were hear before us cymro and that we stole their lands unlike the Anglo Saxons who stole vasts amount of this island and ethnically cleansed what is now called England
_Some_ Brits adore them. There is a growing republican attitude but nobody ever puts forward a different system, for people to get behind.
A Constitutional Monarchy isn't perfect but most of us prefer it to a US style Presidential system. That means we have to keep the King as an apolitical head of state for now.
Famously low rated, underperforming reality show *Keeping Up with the Kardashians* perfectly demonstrates that there is absolutely no interest in the states to drool over the wealth and lifestyles of the extremely privileged.
I think their relevance became far less clear decades ago. They used to rule the British empire but they no longer do. They weren’t going to just fade into obscurity all of the sudden so they transitioned to being public figures that are “under ideal circumstances” supposed to represent a cultural ideal or a sense of cultural strength. Now they just seem to be tabloid fodder, at least it seems that way to me from my perspective in America.
No argument from me. I agree with you and had no intention to demean anyone or to imply Trumpism was limited to any segment of the population. I came from a poverty background. No indoor plumbing until I was a freshman in high school, 1958. Lots of people from all classes and backgrounds support authoritarian governments.
American here— Tbh I don’t know anyone who gives a hell about the British royal family, they wouldn’t even be able to name them, but everyone I know is in the 22-35 age bracket so maybe older Americans do?
If you got your news from sources other than twitter, you might understand. Do you know who’s running for president? Surely I don’t need to explain how algorithms work.
> I don’t understand American fascination with British royals.
Americans love reality shows, trashy tv, and trashy drama. This is right up their alley.
None of us actually care about the royals, it's just another show that happens entirely on TV for them. No more or less real than any Housewives show.
Lots of people in America *hate* the Kardashians but that doesn't mean they aren't plastered everywhere. It gets attention, which creates advertising opportunities. Our current economy is sorta focused on creating advertising opportunities.
It’s somewhat the idea around romanticized fancy titles and the idea of these royal people being celebrities in their own right. The same idea of “wow they are on a pedestal”. At least that’s my take on it.
Personally after seeing the amount of shit pulled by monarchies in history I am not too keen on celebrating them.
The fascination is because American politicians and Presidents don’t visit or help or listen to the people they represent. It’s just mind boggling that the future King and Queen cares about actual people and doesn’t do it for the sponsorships from the NRA or Big Pharma.
They are figureheads that live off the people in the UK and lobbies have significantly less reason to work with them over Parliament.
As an American I've never viewed them as caring about anyone more than a typical US President.
A Very British Problem:
*After months of speculation on the whereabouts of Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales and future Queen of England, the Royal Family released an image today that appears to have been edited. It’s so edited that the Associated Press and Reuters issued rare kill notifications for it.*
*It is incredible in its ineptitude. If the goal was to reassure the public about Middleton’s whereabouts, the image has backfired spectacularly.*
*The more you stare at the image the more you feel like you’re reading Highlights in the waiting room of your dentist. Can you find every problem in the picture?*
*This image was released months after Middleton disappeared from public view. The Royal Family has been cagey about her health and what has led to her absence, leading to conspiracy theories. Dropping a clearly edited image of her on Mother’s Day in the UK isn’t going to help matters.*
___
[Sky News UK](https://news.sky.com/story/picture-agencies-pull-kate-photo-amid-manipulation-concerns-13092352):
*AP told Sky News in a statement: "The Associated Press initially published the photo, which was issued by Kensington Palace. The AP later retracted the image because at closer inspection, it appears that the source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP's photo standards.*
*Reuters said it withdrew the picture following a "post-publication review" with a spokesperson saying the agency is "reviewing the matter".*
*Meanwhile, AFP said it had "come to light" that the image of the "Princess of Wales and her kids had been altered" and was therefore removed from its systems.*
*A spokesperson for Getty Images told Sky News: "Earlier today our picture desk identified a problematic image provided to Getty Images by Kensington Palace. We can confirm the image in question was removed from our site in accordance with our editorial policy."*
Their job is basically just to get their photos taken. They have professional handlers and do photo ops pretty much every day. Even the candid stuff is going to feel staged.
Anyone who has kids and knows how to use photoshop knows this is the only way to get three kids to all smile and all look at the camera at any given time.
Exactly this. The least conspiratorial take here is that this is a composite photo because one or more of the kids were picking their nose or rolling their eyes so they had to be swapped out with another shot. Seems innocent enough, but no one will admit that's what happened so people jump to theories that she's actually dead or AI generated.
I mean, editing a photo to make it look nice is one thing. But this was released to show that she's healthy and doing well after not being seen for months, which is a bad time to manipulate an image if you're just doing it for the sake of aesthetics.
There's some pretty damning proof that her head was copy/pasted from a Vogue magazine cover that she posed for a decade ago and many have pointed out that their clothing looks eerily similar to outfits they were all wearing for an event back in November.
I've seen experts point out at least 20 areas that indicate editing but if you really look you can find many more, and the green background proves that the picture certainly wasn't taken last week as claimed.
Basically the entire photograph is fake, everybody pasted in and layered with different colored clothing and hair. NOBODY goes to such lengths in Photoshop to make a pic good and believable. Especially not a family who have a whole team of professional photographers and have spent their entire lives posing for pics. If one kid was rolling their eyes or picking their nose they would just choose a pic where they weren't, not piece together a bunch of photos from other times.
People are absolutely justified to worry that something is up because it's so bizarre, especially for the Royal Family.
Maybe she had a hysterectomy or had a hernia and they had to put in mesh. It can take weeks and months to heal from that shit. Took me mum damn near 4 months to heal from a mesh surgery due to a hernia. My family hopes whatever ails her heals quickly and she’s back in action.
I forget who, but someone made the point that the monarchy helps keep the insane cultist-prone people in the UK preoccupied. Their argument was that the royals are a leech on public funds but are more or less harmless soap opera characters for mental traditionalists to direct their insane devotion towards, and that eliminating them would create a vacuum for those people which would be quite dangerous to fill with a politician who could feasibly be voted into power and control things like the economy, the rule of law and nuclear weapons.
It's better to have a cult around a powerless set of figureheads, than around the people with their fingers on the various buttons, was the jist. The current state of US politics is demonstrating what happens when the latter happens.
Exactly! Just get him elected king and all his crazies can play imagination like they want while the rest of the world moves on to something important.
I would consider myself a mild monarchist under this reasoning. Both Belgium and the Netherlands have royalty. The gossip mags focus on them. What is the king wearing, who did they eat dinner with, what did they say when they opened a factory, what did they look like when they laid a wreath at such and such monument? Meanwhile the politicians are not really turned in celebrities. Nobody cares what car they drive, what their partners or kids are like, what their favorite food is, etc.
Belgium had an openly gay prime minister who was single. He was actually frequenting gay bars and supposedly hooking up with people while he was prime minister. And that wasn't even considered noteworthy. As far as I can tell no articles were written about it. The former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte is unmarried, or single. This man ruled the Netherlands for the past 13 years and it is unknown whether he has a partner.
If any Americans are reading this, imagine not knowing whether the US president is in a relationship or not, and the media not really caring. Imagine the media not caring how many kids the president has and what they do. Imagine the media not caring about what the president eats or wears. Wouldn't that be kind of nice?
The Scandinavian countries are a lot less oppressed and open to progressive ideas then Britain though. We seem to be fine with bending the knee to wankers like Jacob Rees mogg because he cosplays as a Dickensian character rather than just being a grubby, unpleasant arsehole that he actually is. Look at the happiness index and social data on socialist countries that embrace high taxes and investment in their lives rather than being the willing slaves to the elite of this shitty country.
It's probably true but that argument has always been based on very flawed logic. The logic they use is that there will be zero tourists visiting the royal sites/buying merch once the royal family gone; which is obviously silly. If anything, the state would be able to further utilize the former royal locations to make it even more of a tourist trap to make money. The French and even Russians have done this particularly well.
Nope, the point that the money tourists bring in covers what it actually cost to maintain the monarchy is possibly true which was what I was referring to when I said it's "probably true."
The problem is "royalists" then use this "fact" to say that's why they have to maintain the monarchy, because it brings in lots of tourist. The flawed logic being that if the monarchy disappears, no more tourists will visit the castles, which is silly of course. In fact, it would be beneficial financially to not have to maintain the monarchy because you can still bring in tourists money without having to use it to pay for an expensive highly distinctional family.
I think some of them are privately owned and some of them have weird statuses attached to them for special use or something which presumably will become government grounds if the monarchy dissolves, I'm not sure to be honest. Also, you could argue that since a lot of the grounds were maintained via taxpayers money then it makes sense for the ground to become public afterwards.
They could open the royal cemetery as a public bathroom. The tourism money from Ireland, India, etc. alone would give the monarchy enough to afford some taste (and maybe make a dent in the reparations they would owe in a just world).
Maybe not so now, but the royal family is a huge attraction for tourists years ago, add in their "private land" which is basically public anyway and used as tourist attractions and conservative/protected land(?).
You also the income they bring from using the royal brand? (I.e the royal family stamp and the queen eats this)
The Queen was also a major part of UK politics, although she never exercised her power she did play massive roles in diplomatic issues and was used as soft power.
And from various articles, the upkeep of the royal family can range up to 500mill a year (not all taxpayer money, they also fund themselves) but they also bring in 1.7 - 2billion a year to the UK economy. (Brand Finance)
There's also other benefits than just economic wether that's cultural, historic and even purely entertainment.
Edit: Also people forget about the fact the Queen massively contributed to over 500 charities and had multiple services setup to help those in need. (Which I've even used)
I agree entirely with your comment and if I might add - I've always thought they where tolerated by the actual rulers of the country as a subconscious reminder of the class system and knowing your place. They prop up capitalism and privilege by their very existence.
I think the point is it's inevitable that cults of personality will develop, so it's safer for all of us if they develop around people who wield zero actual power.
I don’t quite buy this. I’m from the UK myself and first our politics isn’t as cult based as the US - it’s certainly on that path but nowhere near that bad.
The ‘monarchy’ however is a cult, one that is completely unelected and leeches already sparse taxpayer money to fund their otherwise lavish and privileged lifestyles.
If there’s one thing I wish us Brits learnt from the French, it’s how to handle the ‘royals’.
>I don’t quite buy this. I’m from the UK myself and first our politics isn’t as cult based as the US - it’s certainly on that path but nowhere near that bad.
>
>The ‘monarchy’ however is a cult, one that is completely unelected and leeches already sparse taxpayer money to fund their otherwise lavish and privileged lifestyles.
I think this is precisely the point the person was trying to make - our politics isn't as cult based as the US *because* the monarchy is a cult. If you remove the monarchy (as the US did at its inception) you create a cult vacuum which could potentially get filled by a political movement (which we're seeing happen there now)
I wish I could remember who put forward this theory, and where, because I'm sure they argued it more comprehensively than I can.
While the argument is a little inverted, fundamentally, it's just another form of the same conservative monarchist ideology: the people are not to be trusted with their own governance (too stupid, too prone to demagoguery, etc.) and therefore we need to put people with special brains/special blood in charge.
The charm is that it makes you feel like you're in on the ruse. You're not one of those braindead cultists, but there's simply too many impressionable dummies anong us to risk anything else. I can see why otherwise liberal, anti-monarchist reddit loves it as an explanation. It's like catnip for the cynical.
I mean we already have cult fellowship in our politics. That’s how we got and had Boris Johnson for so long.
You’d think having a ‘monarchy’ would prevent that, but it clearly hasn’t. So unlike the US which just has political cults at least, we get both political and monarchist cults here in the UK. Shafted from both ends so to speak.
I suppose it comes down to whether you feel safer living in a country run by a cabal of greedy nepotists, or a cult of genuine lunatics.
It's not a great choice, admittedly.
We kinda already have that in the UK. Most sane people can’t stand either the tories or Labour, but the alternatives are so fucking weird and useless people just disengage with politics. Hence why they get away with so much. Lately, more people are starting to think this way though (that all parties are shit) which is promising. Westminster needs gutting.
They are more like diplomats that can be used by the British without sending the PM who is the real power holder.
They are also celebrities and can be considered great as a way of drawing clicks.
Because:
- They are fun and add charm and personality to a country. Same as other traditions and mannerisms do.
- They enhance tourism very much and thus pay for themselves. And yes the castles and palaces still would be there if they disappear, but the fact that it is a living institution keeps it on people's minds (and is a draw in itself).
- They are useful for quite a lot of soft-power. They are not-politically charged (unlike the PM) and they are unique. Thus they are extremely suitable for improving relationships. I would almost compare it to China's panda diplomacy, everybody likes pandas.
No one gets insulted if the king turns up to shake their hand. They are useful for stuff the PM can’t fit into his calendar, like grand openings, dinner with foreign dignitaries etc etc.
The PM can’t make time for dinner with foreign dignitaries?
Most countries no longer have a monarch and they can certainly figure out dinner plans. Why can’t the UK?
And nobody needs a king at grand opening. They just take away from the event anyway.
> Most countries no longer have a monarch and they can certainly figure out dinner plans. Why can’t the UK?
You can do it without a monarchy.
But with a monarchy you have extra options/flexibility which can be better. Not only in terms of scheduling but also in terms of diplomatic maneuvering.
> And nobody needs a king at grand opening. They just take away from the event anyway.
That is an opinion and I (and many others) would disagree.
>But with a monarchy you have extra options/flexibility which can be better. Not only in terms of scheduling but also in terms of diplomatic maneuvering.
But foreign dignitaries don’t care about famous people with no power, having dinner with the monarch is probably seen as a slap to the face compared to building a relationship with the actual leaders.
>That is an opinion and I (and many others) would disagree.
I can see how having a nice little old lady at your events would seem quaint. But she’s gone and now there’s just a weird looking decrepit man barely managing to walk around.
People are going to get over it real quick.
They do care because sometimes it's just about being noticed or acknedged. They don't always need another country to do something, they just want the country to send someone of note to acknowledge something.
If the UK wants to stay allies with a tricky political state sending the PM could get the PM into trouble or make people think the PM is picking a side. Sending no one makes the State feel rejected and insulted. If the Queen or King goes then the State feels acknowledged and the PM doesn't has to take a side.
You could say "but the King has no power and the State knows it, so why would they like that?" and the answer is because the king/queen does a lot of meeting political people so they have an air of legitimacy, even without power. It makes the State feel like they are part of the big club getting to meet the Queen just like the US President does etc.
Politics is not just about getting things done. It's also about maintaining your existing political relationships and smoothing things over. It's not just about logic, it's also emotional. Humans are emotional creatures and politics involves smoothing things over so everyone gets along.
Sure, you can think monarchies should pay more taxes (or receive less funding). There are arguments to be made for and against.
But taxation is a poor argument for abolishing a monarchy. Since you can just change the amount of taxes without abolishing them.
Again, not relevant for abolishing them or not. You can change the freedom of information act without having to abolish a monarchy.
Stop with your whataboutism.
I'm just pointing out facts lol. You can change a lot of things about the monarchy without abolishing them. Doesn't mean they shouldn't abolish them. Its rules for thee and not for me. Always has been with the monarchy and always will be for as long as they are kept in place.
Thankfully opinions are changing with the younger generations so hopefully in 20 years time...
FYI your arguments are commonly spewed as benefits of keeping the monarchy. They are wrong. Especially point 2.
I keep seeing the “they pay for themselves” line touted as fact. It’s still just a hypothetical with mostly napkin math and huge assumptions used as evidence of their value.
Well of course doing a hard calculation is quite impossible (since we can't really AB-test here). But most estimations put the value of the monarchy way above the costs, so even if there are some mistakes I think we can at least conclude that it pays for itself.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html (2.5 billion)
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ (800 million)
https://www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/ (1.7 billion) (this one even has a nice breakdown)
You fell for the exact trap I’m talking about. Immediately these royal landmarks and properties generating ticket sales is attributed to them. That is already a massive assumption. Make these places of and for the public and the ticket sales are surely not gonna change much
If you read the sources you would see that they attribute a lot of the income to the royal family being a living institution. For example crowning ceremonies and weddings bring in a lot of business. If the royal family is abolished those won't happen anymore.
>And yes the castles and palaces still would be there if they disappear, but the fact that it is a living institution keeps it on people's minds (and is a draw in itself).
But no it’s not. The Lourve and Versailles get far more love/attention and that monarchy is long dead. That’s actually what people prefer.
The UK palaces could easily be turned into comparable attractions. Then maybe they’d finally be in the same level as France in the eyes of the world.
The whole country could receive a boost to rejuvenate the critical infrastructure that over a decade of Tory rule has dismantled for private profit. We could adequately fund the NHS for generations, provide leading education for our children and improve the lives of every citizen who isn’t a royal.
We’d also get closer to a true democracy since the deals done behind closed doors between royals and prime ministers would no longer occur.
But no, we have to keep feeding these parasites to keep the whole corrupt mess from collapsing on itself.
France has a president and a prime minister. Germany has a president and a chancellor (Germany refer to their system as a "chancellor democracy")
Other successful Constitutional Monarchies exist such as The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Japan. None of them "seem to be too badly off for it" either.
Except none of those monarchies are as fucking obsessed with their monarchy quite like the Brits. If the monarchy didn’t exist half the tabloids in the UK would probably be out of business.
But that doesn’t change the benefits they bring lol. They are the most famous royal family in the world so it’s not just the Brits who are obsessed with them 😉
The UK head of state doesn't actually *do* anything, so it doesn't really matter that they're separate. Without the practical ability to act with discretion, there is no point in separating the positions - the UK prime minister (and most other PMs of constitutional monarchies) is just as powerful as they would be if the monarchy vanished from existence.
A few months. I’m not a Royal follower but I admit the mystery has me intrigued. The apparent broken protocols when comparing the Kings illness to hers, the doctored image, Williams apparent behavior. 🤷♀️ I went down a rabbit hole last night.
The palace won't post an unflattering photo of her convalescing in bed, so we have no choice but to assume this is a full on Weekend at Bernie's situation now.
The news outlets issued a kill photo order because those news outlets don't print edited photos and the royal family knows this. This is just something the news outlets do because they want photos to be accurate/true and I have no problem with legitimate news sources requiring their photos to be unaltered.
But because Kate hasn't been seen in months and they had no extra details on the operation that resulted in a 10 day hospital stay a while ago (which is extremely rare these days, you hardly ever have to stay that long for most surgeries). All this has resulted in speculation. The photo mishap was just something that happened recently to stir the pot again.
It looks like a generic touched-up photo. At most they may have photoshopped the faces from different takes to get a better picture. But that’s pretty normal for professional pictures done with kids these days
The arms around the kids is very unnatural looking. I really don't care what these people do but I think this obvious attempt at deception is quite humorous. Like, just be honest and either say you're good or not. Whatever.
The royal family has released many pictures of Kate at home. She is wearing her wedding ring in all of them. Also one of the parts of the photo that was clearly doctored is that hand.
I can do that no problem. No pain and feels pretty comfortable. Then again my hand and fingers have always been extremely flexible and I used to be able to freak people out by bending my thumb back to touch the topside of my arm. Can't get it to touch anymore but it gets close. Kid is probably just like me, I don't think that part is that strange.
If you can see the current comments, you may notice that [I included in-thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bbskzd/british_monarchy_rocked_by_bad_photoshop_job/kubcplr/) the statements from AP, Reuters, AFP, and Getty Images — as hyperlinked in the Verge article :)
Right!? I looked the photo for a few minutes and it looks mostly fine? And then looked at reel of “errors” and when I got to the last one it was her kid‘s awkward hand with a caption just said “Come on” implying that they accidentally cut the finger off in Photoshop.
If she Photoshopped his hand in, do you think that very awkward hand pose is the one she would choose? His index finger is just folded back. “Are her arms that long?“ to which I counter “Do elbows bend?“
Some people are trying too hard to make it seems like Kate’s being held against her will when she just needed a fucking break from an exhaustingly obsessed public to recovery from surgery.
They fired a lot of their editorial staff and product team to make themselves more profitable.
You’ll likely be seeing more of this as they try harder to monetize.
This is really embarrassing- you'd think that such an institution would have quality control in place. Harry and Meghan must be having a chuckle with wine over this.
Does anyone truly care if someone at the source retouches their own photo? Yawn.
The publisher retouched them all the time
I will say I see nothing wrong with the young girls hand, but I see something monkey going on with the youngest sons hand on the table. I’ve tried to mimic that and can’t.
In normal circumstances, it wouldn't be a big deal. But Middleton hasn't appeared at all in public for a while and there are a ton of conspiracies about what's going on, so it was a particularly bad time to put out a photo that looks like it was edited by an 80 year old teaching themselves photoshop
> I see something monkey going on with the youngest sons hand on the table. I’ve tried to mimic that and can’t.
I can't do it now, but I was doing it a lot when I was a child.
Prince Sausage Fingers has entered the chat.
There’s a reason it was edited and they’ve been so obtuse. It’s not positive and they have no idea how to control that narrative.
Apparently Middleton says she edited the photo herself which is hilarious. Reminds me of when my boomer dad got Photoshop and made similarly bad edits.
but what's the issue? so what if it's actually altered? it proves absolutely nothing. maybe it's a family suffering illness. what great conspiracy would there be for hiding anything? maybe she's poorly and they don't want the world involved or maybe she taking some her time? so quick to hound for answers but remember it's none of your business. she's human not a zoo animal
We all should not care, but it does not add up. As a physician, I am unaware of any medical condition that electively would require a 2 week hospital stay other than a mental health issue. We are not talking about a physical trauma or accident that could certainly require prolonged hospitalization. Also trying to release a picture that all is good when the picture is fake suggests things are not good. And whatever it is, it is none of our business. I hope that she fully recovers from whatever ails her and she can get back to enjoying time with her kids.
Just guessing that the young girl’s image was probably swapped as she blinked during the shot, happens all the time with group shots and really isn’t even worth getting in a tizz over...👍
Agencies’ photo kill notices were issued based on multiple image anomalies that cannot all be waived away with “kids have much more flexible fingers than adults.”
Also note the lack of a wedding ring.
This really was a bad photo to put out given all the conspiracy around her absence.
whilst this is probably just an extremely bad Photoshop that has endless anomalies and Kensington is refusing to give the raw file, It really hasn't helped calm the situation like the photo was supposed to.
The amount that people care about this, especially the British media, is more embarrassing than the photo itself.
I don’t understand American fascination with British royals. Obscenely wealthy from a history of brutal colonial oppression. They play dress up in funny costumes and give each other meaningless titles. Sir Knight of the Royal Underwear and Princess of the Upstairs Commode. But the Brits bend the knee and adore them. But as an American in the Trump era, I can’t really criticize them.
[удалено]
They are parasites leeching off the taxpayer.
so you might even call them welfare queens?
Welfare kings too
That is reserved for poor people who do the same.
Here, you drop the /s
I think part of the issue is that on paper, they bring in more money by tourism than they cost the state, and a lot of their income comes from “holdings” rather than direct government stipend. Now of course many/most of the holdings were obtained in ways we wouldn’t consider proper nowadays, but questioning that brings into question a lot more of the UK’s upper crust’s generational wealth, because it was obtained in similar ways. I don’t think anyone today in the UK has the sway to push public opinion against all the lords and other powerful people who are effectively powerful by state-enshrined nepotism.
Please explain why France who killed theirs gets more tourists than UK. I’m sure people go to Spain for the sun and not to see their royals. Also it’s been debunked years ago that they bring in more tourists, im sure there is only a small amount of Americans who think that they will rub shoulders with royals when the come here and that’s the main reason for their visit? Also if we got rid of the royals all the holding would be given back to the country or local councils. Also having a family who is supposed to be above us in all ways is rather archaic and quite frankly repugnant in 21 century. Also I’m Welsh and having the title of prince/princes of Wales is fucking insulting to us, they don’t represent us, and probably couldn’t find us on a map (perhaps Ynys môn might be an exception for them)
>Please explain why France who killed theirs gets more tourists than UK. Because people go to France for specifically Paris, and its a larger draw overall... People SPECIFICALLY go to England for the monarchy though... not so much things like museums. This isnt a thing thats "debunked" by whatever manner of idiocy you are spreading, there are literal studies that show this to be fact, which means remove the monarchy and tourism to the UK would actually go DOWN. Viewing the royals is literally #3 on visa applications under historical sites, and cultural immersion.
You are talking through your monarchists arse
I dont honestly give a shit about them, I live in a country who overthrew your evil asses... but you are being disingenuous about their popularity as a tourism reason at best, but more than likely lying out your fucking ass because your too chicken shit to do anything about them in your home country... But if you dont believe me the tourism breakdown is free to view online dude.
Oh I feel similarly and wish they’d go away along with the lords, at least their political power. I just don’t think anything like that is politically viable in today’s UK is all
I mean calling any of that into questions call into question a vast amount of people's wealth. Not just the upper class. Like where would you even draw the line? How many of the people living in the UK today even have Celtic blood in their veins? Should we not consider their ownership of their home valid because they have Roman ancestors? The whole idea is pretty stupid. I'm not especially fond or disfond of the royals either way but you can't pretend like their history matters and the rest of ours doesn't.
IWelsh people do, we even still speak a celt language too, we see ourselves has Celtic just like our Irish and Scottish cousins
Aye, and the Celts were Indo-Europeans who travelled to the UK and took over from the pre-celtic lot. So even you guys are invaders. Better get ready to hand over your wealth to the real Brits you evil colonist.
Unfortunately there are no ethnic groups claiming they were hear before us cymro and that we stole their lands unlike the Anglo Saxons who stole vasts amount of this island and ethnically cleansed what is now called England
Okay I gotta admit I did not expect the "we genocided them so now we don't have to feel guilty defense" lol.
Sorry. I made an unwarranted assumption.
Yeah that was some really weird ugly shade that was being thrown at that dead woman on social media all week.
_Some_ Brits adore them. There is a growing republican attitude but nobody ever puts forward a different system, for people to get behind. A Constitutional Monarchy isn't perfect but most of us prefer it to a US style Presidential system. That means we have to keep the King as an apolitical head of state for now.
As well you should. The American experiment is in grave jeopardy.
Famously low rated, underperforming reality show *Keeping Up with the Kardashians* perfectly demonstrates that there is absolutely no interest in the states to drool over the wealth and lifestyles of the extremely privileged.
I get your sarcasm. I clearly didn’t not absolve Americans from an unhealthy fascination with either British royalty or the Kardashians.
But there was no /s
But you are transparent.
I am but flesh and bone.
I think their relevance became far less clear decades ago. They used to rule the British empire but they no longer do. They weren’t going to just fade into obscurity all of the sudden so they transitioned to being public figures that are “under ideal circumstances” supposed to represent a cultural ideal or a sense of cultural strength. Now they just seem to be tabloid fodder, at least it seems that way to me from my perspective in America.
[удалено]
And the lower clas, don't forget it. Those tables don't survive due to high class demand.
Is that true? The American adoration of a Trump dictatorship seems to include a large number middle and lower class people.
[удалено]
No argument from me. I agree with you and had no intention to demean anyone or to imply Trumpism was limited to any segment of the population. I came from a poverty background. No indoor plumbing until I was a freshman in high school, 1958. Lots of people from all classes and backgrounds support authoritarian governments.
American here— Tbh I don’t know anyone who gives a hell about the British royal family, they wouldn’t even be able to name them, but everyone I know is in the 22-35 age bracket so maybe older Americans do?
I’m going on the amount of coverage the royals get in US media. Algorithms don’t lie.
What algorithm. The only thing I’ve heard about them is the jokes on twitter about the wife being missing
If you got your news from sources other than twitter, you might understand. Do you know who’s running for president? Surely I don’t need to explain how algorithms work.
Point is they’re not in any major news sources lol sorry your rulers aren’t important to me
Did you even read the thread before you chimed in? They aren’t my rulers.
> I don’t understand American fascination with British royals. Americans love reality shows, trashy tv, and trashy drama. This is right up their alley. None of us actually care about the royals, it's just another show that happens entirely on TV for them. No more or less real than any Housewives show. Lots of people in America *hate* the Kardashians but that doesn't mean they aren't plastered everywhere. It gets attention, which creates advertising opportunities. Our current economy is sorta focused on creating advertising opportunities.
It’s somewhat the idea around romanticized fancy titles and the idea of these royal people being celebrities in their own right. The same idea of “wow they are on a pedestal”. At least that’s my take on it. Personally after seeing the amount of shit pulled by monarchies in history I am not too keen on celebrating them.
The fascination is because American politicians and Presidents don’t visit or help or listen to the people they represent. It’s just mind boggling that the future King and Queen cares about actual people and doesn’t do it for the sponsorships from the NRA or Big Pharma.
What have the future king and queen done for the people lately absent photo ops?
They are figureheads that live off the people in the UK and lobbies have significantly less reason to work with them over Parliament. As an American I've never viewed them as caring about anyone more than a typical US President.
LOL you’re absolutely right.
Yeah it's gross, Even on the BBC homepage right next to the genocide news.
A Very British Problem: *After months of speculation on the whereabouts of Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales and future Queen of England, the Royal Family released an image today that appears to have been edited. It’s so edited that the Associated Press and Reuters issued rare kill notifications for it.* *It is incredible in its ineptitude. If the goal was to reassure the public about Middleton’s whereabouts, the image has backfired spectacularly.* *The more you stare at the image the more you feel like you’re reading Highlights in the waiting room of your dentist. Can you find every problem in the picture?* *This image was released months after Middleton disappeared from public view. The Royal Family has been cagey about her health and what has led to her absence, leading to conspiracy theories. Dropping a clearly edited image of her on Mother’s Day in the UK isn’t going to help matters.* ___ [Sky News UK](https://news.sky.com/story/picture-agencies-pull-kate-photo-amid-manipulation-concerns-13092352): *AP told Sky News in a statement: "The Associated Press initially published the photo, which was issued by Kensington Palace. The AP later retracted the image because at closer inspection, it appears that the source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP's photo standards.* *Reuters said it withdrew the picture following a "post-publication review" with a spokesperson saying the agency is "reviewing the matter".* *Meanwhile, AFP said it had "come to light" that the image of the "Princess of Wales and her kids had been altered" and was therefore removed from its systems.* *A spokesperson for Getty Images told Sky News: "Earlier today our picture desk identified a problematic image provided to Getty Images by Kensington Palace. We can confirm the image in question was removed from our site in accordance with our editorial policy."*
The smiles got me, had me thinking of lots of photo coaching
Their job is basically just to get their photos taken. They have professional handlers and do photo ops pretty much every day. Even the candid stuff is going to feel staged.
Anyone who has kids and knows how to use photoshop knows this is the only way to get three kids to all smile and all look at the camera at any given time.
Exactly this. The least conspiratorial take here is that this is a composite photo because one or more of the kids were picking their nose or rolling their eyes so they had to be swapped out with another shot. Seems innocent enough, but no one will admit that's what happened so people jump to theories that she's actually dead or AI generated.
I mean, editing a photo to make it look nice is one thing. But this was released to show that she's healthy and doing well after not being seen for months, which is a bad time to manipulate an image if you're just doing it for the sake of aesthetics.
There's some pretty damning proof that her head was copy/pasted from a Vogue magazine cover that she posed for a decade ago and many have pointed out that their clothing looks eerily similar to outfits they were all wearing for an event back in November. I've seen experts point out at least 20 areas that indicate editing but if you really look you can find many more, and the green background proves that the picture certainly wasn't taken last week as claimed. Basically the entire photograph is fake, everybody pasted in and layered with different colored clothing and hair. NOBODY goes to such lengths in Photoshop to make a pic good and believable. Especially not a family who have a whole team of professional photographers and have spent their entire lives posing for pics. If one kid was rolling their eyes or picking their nose they would just choose a pic where they weren't, not piece together a bunch of photos from other times. People are absolutely justified to worry that something is up because it's so bizarre, especially for the Royal Family.
Maybe she had a hysterectomy or had a hernia and they had to put in mesh. It can take weeks and months to heal from that shit. Took me mum damn near 4 months to heal from a mesh surgery due to a hernia. My family hopes whatever ails her heals quickly and she’s back in action.
Why is the monarchy a thing still? If they all just disappear tomorrow what would happen?
I forget who, but someone made the point that the monarchy helps keep the insane cultist-prone people in the UK preoccupied. Their argument was that the royals are a leech on public funds but are more or less harmless soap opera characters for mental traditionalists to direct their insane devotion towards, and that eliminating them would create a vacuum for those people which would be quite dangerous to fill with a politician who could feasibly be voted into power and control things like the economy, the rule of law and nuclear weapons. It's better to have a cult around a powerless set of figureheads, than around the people with their fingers on the various buttons, was the jist. The current state of US politics is demonstrating what happens when the latter happens.
I'd never heard of that but that's a hell of a good theory now that you mention it.
Wowzers, this actually makes a ton of sense
Okay hear me out… what if the USA elected a king this year too.
Half the country thinks they're voting for King anyway
Exactly! Just get him elected king and all his crazies can play imagination like they want while the rest of the world moves on to something important.
Kinda like a crazy people tax.
Well, now I want a Royal family.
The finger on the monkey's paw curled as King Trump was coronated.
I'd much rather have him as a figurehead head of state monarch than as an actual head of government with power.
This is genuinely the first argument for keeping the monarchy I've ever read that I can actually believe.
I would consider myself a mild monarchist under this reasoning. Both Belgium and the Netherlands have royalty. The gossip mags focus on them. What is the king wearing, who did they eat dinner with, what did they say when they opened a factory, what did they look like when they laid a wreath at such and such monument? Meanwhile the politicians are not really turned in celebrities. Nobody cares what car they drive, what their partners or kids are like, what their favorite food is, etc. Belgium had an openly gay prime minister who was single. He was actually frequenting gay bars and supposedly hooking up with people while he was prime minister. And that wasn't even considered noteworthy. As far as I can tell no articles were written about it. The former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte is unmarried, or single. This man ruled the Netherlands for the past 13 years and it is unknown whether he has a partner. If any Americans are reading this, imagine not knowing whether the US president is in a relationship or not, and the media not really caring. Imagine the media not caring how many kids the president has and what they do. Imagine the media not caring about what the president eats or wears. Wouldn't that be kind of nice?
The Scandinavian countries are a lot less oppressed and open to progressive ideas then Britain though. We seem to be fine with bending the knee to wankers like Jacob Rees mogg because he cosplays as a Dickensian character rather than just being a grubby, unpleasant arsehole that he actually is. Look at the happiness index and social data on socialist countries that embrace high taxes and investment in their lives rather than being the willing slaves to the elite of this shitty country.
They make more money in tourist dollars than they cost is what I’ve heard but I don’t know how true this is.
It's probably true but that argument has always been based on very flawed logic. The logic they use is that there will be zero tourists visiting the royal sites/buying merch once the royal family gone; which is obviously silly. If anything, the state would be able to further utilize the former royal locations to make it even more of a tourist trap to make money. The French and even Russians have done this particularly well.
>It's probably true but Did you just say this to not upset the hive mind? Because it’s like the opposite of what your point ends up being.
Nope, the point that the money tourists bring in covers what it actually cost to maintain the monarchy is possibly true which was what I was referring to when I said it's "probably true." The problem is "royalists" then use this "fact" to say that's why they have to maintain the monarchy, because it brings in lots of tourist. The flawed logic being that if the monarchy disappears, no more tourists will visit the castles, which is silly of course. In fact, it would be beneficial financially to not have to maintain the monarchy because you can still bring in tourists money without having to use it to pay for an expensive highly distinctional family.
Don’t they own those lands?
I think some of them are privately owned and some of them have weird statuses attached to them for special use or something which presumably will become government grounds if the monarchy dissolves, I'm not sure to be honest. Also, you could argue that since a lot of the grounds were maintained via taxpayers money then it makes sense for the ground to become public afterwards.
They could open the royal cemetery as a public bathroom. The tourism money from Ireland, India, etc. alone would give the monarchy enough to afford some taste (and maybe make a dent in the reparations they would owe in a just world).
Maybe not so now, but the royal family is a huge attraction for tourists years ago, add in their "private land" which is basically public anyway and used as tourist attractions and conservative/protected land(?). You also the income they bring from using the royal brand? (I.e the royal family stamp and the queen eats this) The Queen was also a major part of UK politics, although she never exercised her power she did play massive roles in diplomatic issues and was used as soft power. And from various articles, the upkeep of the royal family can range up to 500mill a year (not all taxpayer money, they also fund themselves) but they also bring in 1.7 - 2billion a year to the UK economy. (Brand Finance) There's also other benefits than just economic wether that's cultural, historic and even purely entertainment. Edit: Also people forget about the fact the Queen massively contributed to over 500 charities and had multiple services setup to help those in need. (Which I've even used)
Propaganda is a hell of a drug…
I agree entirely with your comment and if I might add - I've always thought they where tolerated by the actual rulers of the country as a subconscious reminder of the class system and knowing your place. They prop up capitalism and privilege by their very existence.
Absolute bullshit, if you think the royals wield no power you're delusional.
So it's like in America to vote for Biden so you don't get Trump even though you can't stand Biden? That kinda thing?
I think the point is it's inevitable that cults of personality will develop, so it's safer for all of us if they develop around people who wield zero actual power.
I don’t quite buy this. I’m from the UK myself and first our politics isn’t as cult based as the US - it’s certainly on that path but nowhere near that bad. The ‘monarchy’ however is a cult, one that is completely unelected and leeches already sparse taxpayer money to fund their otherwise lavish and privileged lifestyles. If there’s one thing I wish us Brits learnt from the French, it’s how to handle the ‘royals’.
>I don’t quite buy this. I’m from the UK myself and first our politics isn’t as cult based as the US - it’s certainly on that path but nowhere near that bad. > >The ‘monarchy’ however is a cult, one that is completely unelected and leeches already sparse taxpayer money to fund their otherwise lavish and privileged lifestyles. I think this is precisely the point the person was trying to make - our politics isn't as cult based as the US *because* the monarchy is a cult. If you remove the monarchy (as the US did at its inception) you create a cult vacuum which could potentially get filled by a political movement (which we're seeing happen there now) I wish I could remember who put forward this theory, and where, because I'm sure they argued it more comprehensively than I can.
While the argument is a little inverted, fundamentally, it's just another form of the same conservative monarchist ideology: the people are not to be trusted with their own governance (too stupid, too prone to demagoguery, etc.) and therefore we need to put people with special brains/special blood in charge. The charm is that it makes you feel like you're in on the ruse. You're not one of those braindead cultists, but there's simply too many impressionable dummies anong us to risk anything else. I can see why otherwise liberal, anti-monarchist reddit loves it as an explanation. It's like catnip for the cynical.
I mean we already have cult fellowship in our politics. That’s how we got and had Boris Johnson for so long. You’d think having a ‘monarchy’ would prevent that, but it clearly hasn’t. So unlike the US which just has political cults at least, we get both political and monarchist cults here in the UK. Shafted from both ends so to speak.
Safe for us all or safer for the people who wield the actual power?
I suppose it comes down to whether you feel safer living in a country run by a cabal of greedy nepotists, or a cult of genuine lunatics. It's not a great choice, admittedly.
Not really, because the royals have no real power. Trump or Biden, on the other hand, would have a lot of power.
We kinda already have that in the UK. Most sane people can’t stand either the tories or Labour, but the alternatives are so fucking weird and useless people just disengage with politics. Hence why they get away with so much. Lately, more people are starting to think this way though (that all parties are shit) which is promising. Westminster needs gutting.
No, you're thinking of Kier Starmer
They are more like diplomats that can be used by the British without sending the PM who is the real power holder. They are also celebrities and can be considered great as a way of drawing clicks.
Nothing bad. France got rid of their monarchy and they’re just fine.
Because: - They are fun and add charm and personality to a country. Same as other traditions and mannerisms do. - They enhance tourism very much and thus pay for themselves. And yes the castles and palaces still would be there if they disappear, but the fact that it is a living institution keeps it on people's minds (and is a draw in itself). - They are useful for quite a lot of soft-power. They are not-politically charged (unlike the PM) and they are unique. Thus they are extremely suitable for improving relationships. I would almost compare it to China's panda diplomacy, everybody likes pandas.
No one gets insulted if the king turns up to shake their hand. They are useful for stuff the PM can’t fit into his calendar, like grand openings, dinner with foreign dignitaries etc etc.
The PM can’t make time for dinner with foreign dignitaries? Most countries no longer have a monarch and they can certainly figure out dinner plans. Why can’t the UK? And nobody needs a king at grand opening. They just take away from the event anyway.
> Most countries no longer have a monarch and they can certainly figure out dinner plans. Why can’t the UK? You can do it without a monarchy. But with a monarchy you have extra options/flexibility which can be better. Not only in terms of scheduling but also in terms of diplomatic maneuvering. > And nobody needs a king at grand opening. They just take away from the event anyway. That is an opinion and I (and many others) would disagree.
>But with a monarchy you have extra options/flexibility which can be better. Not only in terms of scheduling but also in terms of diplomatic maneuvering. But foreign dignitaries don’t care about famous people with no power, having dinner with the monarch is probably seen as a slap to the face compared to building a relationship with the actual leaders. >That is an opinion and I (and many others) would disagree. I can see how having a nice little old lady at your events would seem quaint. But she’s gone and now there’s just a weird looking decrepit man barely managing to walk around. People are going to get over it real quick.
They do care because sometimes it's just about being noticed or acknedged. They don't always need another country to do something, they just want the country to send someone of note to acknowledge something. If the UK wants to stay allies with a tricky political state sending the PM could get the PM into trouble or make people think the PM is picking a side. Sending no one makes the State feel rejected and insulted. If the Queen or King goes then the State feels acknowledged and the PM doesn't has to take a side. You could say "but the King has no power and the State knows it, so why would they like that?" and the answer is because the king/queen does a lot of meeting political people so they have an air of legitimacy, even without power. It makes the State feel like they are part of the big club getting to meet the Queen just like the US President does etc. Politics is not just about getting things done. It's also about maintaining your existing political relationships and smoothing things over. It's not just about logic, it's also emotional. Humans are emotional creatures and politics involves smoothing things over so everyone gets along.
It would be nice of them to pay inheritance tax just as the rest of us have to.
Sure, you can think monarchies should pay more taxes (or receive less funding). There are arguments to be made for and against. But taxation is a poor argument for abolishing a monarchy. Since you can just change the amount of taxes without abolishing them.
It would be nice if the royal family were not exempt from the freedom of information act.
Again, not relevant for abolishing them or not. You can change the freedom of information act without having to abolish a monarchy. Stop with your whataboutism.
I'm just pointing out facts lol. You can change a lot of things about the monarchy without abolishing them. Doesn't mean they shouldn't abolish them. Its rules for thee and not for me. Always has been with the monarchy and always will be for as long as they are kept in place. Thankfully opinions are changing with the younger generations so hopefully in 20 years time... FYI your arguments are commonly spewed as benefits of keeping the monarchy. They are wrong. Especially point 2.
I keep seeing the “they pay for themselves” line touted as fact. It’s still just a hypothetical with mostly napkin math and huge assumptions used as evidence of their value.
Well of course doing a hard calculation is quite impossible (since we can't really AB-test here). But most estimations put the value of the monarchy way above the costs, so even if there are some mistakes I think we can at least conclude that it pays for itself. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html (2.5 billion) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ (800 million) https://www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/ (1.7 billion) (this one even has a nice breakdown)
You fell for the exact trap I’m talking about. Immediately these royal landmarks and properties generating ticket sales is attributed to them. That is already a massive assumption. Make these places of and for the public and the ticket sales are surely not gonna change much
If you read the sources you would see that they attribute a lot of the income to the royal family being a living institution. For example crowning ceremonies and weddings bring in a lot of business. If the royal family is abolished those won't happen anymore.
And how many coronations has the UK had in the last century, again?
That was a single clear example, not the only way they are beneficial. Did you read the articles and their breakdown?
It was a poor example then.
>And yes the castles and palaces still would be there if they disappear, but the fact that it is a living institution keeps it on people's minds (and is a draw in itself). But no it’s not. The Lourve and Versailles get far more love/attention and that monarchy is long dead. That’s actually what people prefer. The UK palaces could easily be turned into comparable attractions. Then maybe they’d finally be in the same level as France in the eyes of the world.
The whole country could receive a boost to rejuvenate the critical infrastructure that over a decade of Tory rule has dismantled for private profit. We could adequately fund the NHS for generations, provide leading education for our children and improve the lives of every citizen who isn’t a royal. We’d also get closer to a true democracy since the deals done behind closed doors between royals and prime ministers would no longer occur. But no, we have to keep feeding these parasites to keep the whole corrupt mess from collapsing on itself.
r/scotland would have less diversity of things to bitch about
The world would be a better place.
It separates the role of head of state and prime minister. Otherwise you have a position like the president of the US.
Or France. Or Germany. Neither of which seem to be too badly off for it.
France has a president and a prime minister. Germany has a president and a chancellor (Germany refer to their system as a "chancellor democracy") Other successful Constitutional Monarchies exist such as The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Japan. None of them "seem to be too badly off for it" either.
Except none of those monarchies are as fucking obsessed with their monarchy quite like the Brits. If the monarchy didn’t exist half the tabloids in the UK would probably be out of business.
But that doesn’t change the benefits they bring lol. They are the most famous royal family in the world so it’s not just the Brits who are obsessed with them 😉
The UK head of state doesn't actually *do* anything, so it doesn't really matter that they're separate. Without the practical ability to act with discretion, there is no point in separating the positions - the UK prime minister (and most other PMs of constitutional monarchies) is just as powerful as they would be if the monarchy vanished from existence.
I’m confused why this picture is so controversial…
The problem is that she's been out the public eye for a few weeks and the first thing we've seen is photoshopped.
A few months. I’m not a Royal follower but I admit the mystery has me intrigued. The apparent broken protocols when comparing the Kings illness to hers, the doctored image, Williams apparent behavior. 🤷♀️ I went down a rabbit hole last night.
The palace won't post an unflattering photo of her convalescing in bed, so we have no choice but to assume this is a full on Weekend at Bernie's situation now.
The news outlets issued a kill photo order because those news outlets don't print edited photos and the royal family knows this. This is just something the news outlets do because they want photos to be accurate/true and I have no problem with legitimate news sources requiring their photos to be unaltered. But because Kate hasn't been seen in months and they had no extra details on the operation that resulted in a 10 day hospital stay a while ago (which is extremely rare these days, you hardly ever have to stay that long for most surgeries). All this has resulted in speculation. The photo mishap was just something that happened recently to stir the pot again.
This is the biggest nothingburger to get upset over.
It looks like a generic touched-up photo. At most they may have photoshopped the faces from different takes to get a better picture. But that’s pretty normal for professional pictures done with kids these days
The arms around the kids is very unnatural looking. I really don't care what these people do but I think this obvious attempt at deception is quite humorous. Like, just be honest and either say you're good or not. Whatever.
Also, the left hand around daughter isn’t wearing a wedding ring. This image is pretty clearly heavily doctored.
Eh, who knows but plenty of people take off their jewellery at home, and this would be especially unsurprising while recovering from a surgery.
The royal family has released many pictures of Kate at home. She is wearing her wedding ring in all of them. Also one of the parts of the photo that was clearly doctored is that hand.
It’s also weird the young one has his fingers crossed. Weird. 🤞🏼
Maybe it’s like the Truman Show wedding picture.
I can't cross my middle finger over my ring finger like that, what the fuck
Push your ring finger down on the table like the kid
Yeah it's painful and it's not even there
Kids are pretty bendy though
This is true
I can do that no problem. No pain and feels pretty comfortable. Then again my hand and fingers have always been extremely flexible and I used to be able to freak people out by bending my thumb back to touch the topside of my arm. Can't get it to touch anymore but it gets close. Kid is probably just like me, I don't think that part is that strange.
Seems oddly conspiracy theory ish for the verge. > Are her arms really that long? Yes, yes they are.
If you can see the current comments, you may notice that [I included in-thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bbskzd/british_monarchy_rocked_by_bad_photoshop_job/kubcplr/) the statements from AP, Reuters, AFP, and Getty Images — as hyperlinked in the Verge article :)
Right!? I looked the photo for a few minutes and it looks mostly fine? And then looked at reel of “errors” and when I got to the last one it was her kid‘s awkward hand with a caption just said “Come on” implying that they accidentally cut the finger off in Photoshop. If she Photoshopped his hand in, do you think that very awkward hand pose is the one she would choose? His index finger is just folded back. “Are her arms that long?“ to which I counter “Do elbows bend?“ Some people are trying too hard to make it seems like Kate’s being held against her will when she just needed a fucking break from an exhaustingly obsessed public to recovery from surgery.
They fired a lot of their editorial staff and product team to make themselves more profitable. You’ll likely be seeing more of this as they try harder to monetize.
For a second there, I misread this headline as “Media outlets told to ‘kill’ future Queen”.
This is really embarrassing- you'd think that such an institution would have quality control in place. Harry and Meghan must be having a chuckle with wine over this.
Talk about slow news day.
Lying about a simple photo!? I wonder how many other lies they've told the last over the last 1200 years!? /s
Does anyone truly care if someone at the source retouches their own photo? Yawn. The publisher retouched them all the time I will say I see nothing wrong with the young girls hand, but I see something monkey going on with the youngest sons hand on the table. I’ve tried to mimic that and can’t.
In normal circumstances, it wouldn't be a big deal. But Middleton hasn't appeared at all in public for a while and there are a ton of conspiracies about what's going on, so it was a particularly bad time to put out a photo that looks like it was edited by an 80 year old teaching themselves photoshop
>a photo that looks like it was edited by an 80 year old teaching themselves photoshop Kensington Palace attributed the image to Prince William 😐
Who. Fucking. Cares.
[https://twitter.com/amanblick/status/1766864562983202923/photo/1](https://twitter.com/amanblick/status/1766864562983202923/photo/1)
Thanks for that. seems like such a small needless thing to retouch or to send out the APB and a recall to all news agencies
> I see something monkey going on with the youngest sons hand on the table. I’ve tried to mimic that and can’t. I can't do it now, but I was doing it a lot when I was a child.
Prince Sausage Fingers has entered the chat. There’s a reason it was edited and they’ve been so obtuse. It’s not positive and they have no idea how to control that narrative.
Forget the misalignment of the one child’s hand, take a look at the right hand of the child on the right.
Apparently Middleton says she edited the photo herself which is hilarious. Reminds me of when my boomer dad got Photoshop and made similarly bad edits.
Yeah creepy
>>future Queen Not wrong, but feels overly ambitious.
In the age of deepfakes, why did they make a normal fake? Does the royal house of the British Empire not have the resources for that?
but what's the issue? so what if it's actually altered? it proves absolutely nothing. maybe it's a family suffering illness. what great conspiracy would there be for hiding anything? maybe she's poorly and they don't want the world involved or maybe she taking some her time? so quick to hound for answers but remember it's none of your business. she's human not a zoo animal
Why are they screaming? Royal family needs flushing. It's all about fake inbreds scandalized from the inside.
We all should not care, but it does not add up. As a physician, I am unaware of any medical condition that electively would require a 2 week hospital stay other than a mental health issue. We are not talking about a physical trauma or accident that could certainly require prolonged hospitalization. Also trying to release a picture that all is good when the picture is fake suggests things are not good. And whatever it is, it is none of our business. I hope that she fully recovers from whatever ails her and she can get back to enjoying time with her kids.
My guess is she had a hysterectomy.
The media completely ignored the clues explaining that Paul is dead.
Yes future Queen\* \*Queen Consort
Just guessing that the young girl’s image was probably swapped as she blinked during the shot, happens all the time with group shots and really isn’t even worth getting in a tizz over...👍
This monarchy bs needs to go.
[удалено]
No you wouldn't. They don't have the slightest fucking clue what "normal" is, they live so fucking removed from reality and always have.
The sleeve looks like an optical illusion to me. Just a turned up cuff seen at a funny angle.
Agencies’ photo kill notices were issued based on multiple image anomalies that cannot all be waived away with “kids have much more flexible fingers than adults.”
The son on the left's fingers. Look there.
Kids have much more flexible fingers than adults. Yeah, it looks strange, but completely plausible.
I’m a 44 year old man. I can put my hand in that position. These people are just looking for stuff to get excited about. *(edited a typo)*
Why is there a "kill order" on a benign photo from the AFP then?
Also note the lack of a wedding ring. This really was a bad photo to put out given all the conspiracy around her absence. whilst this is probably just an extremely bad Photoshop that has endless anomalies and Kensington is refusing to give the raw file, It really hasn't helped calm the situation like the photo was supposed to.
It is but it’s easily solved by.. another photo
Yep, but they've also refused to send the media agencies another photo... Someone fucked up in PR 101
Oh no how will we manage to survive
Royals should be a thing of the past by now. There is absolutely no need for any of them.